Religion, Politics, and the Great Pumpkin

Ask Jeremy

2009-09-01T17:16:00.005-04:00

Hey, here's an idea to reinvigorate this ol' blog (and was sort of what I was fishing for in my recent post)... post a comment/ask me a question. And I will do my best to respond. My mind is always racing with political debates and it's nice to have an avenue for them.

Also, don't forget to follow my tweeties! It's very serious dialogue!

[PS- A starting point for healthcare questions: 5 Myths About Health Care Around the World]

Camelot Ends With a Whimper, Not A Bang.

2009-08-26T07:55:00.001-04:00

“This is the cause of my life. New hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American - north, south, east, west, young, old - will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”
--Senator Ted Kennedy, exactly one year ago today. Rest in peace.

I Tweet, Therefore I Am?

2009-08-24T12:38:00.000-04:00

PS- Still soliciting feedback on what topics to discuss here. Also, I tweet @blueduck37.

With Friends Like These...

2009-08-24T12:11:00.005-04:00

Earlier this month, President Obama called GOP Senator Charles Grassley one of his "Republican friends on Capitol Hill" who was "sincerely trying to figure out if they find a health care bill that works."

Sen. Grassley was so warmed by the President's kind words that he has since gone around stating things like how he won't allow a bill that will "pull the plug on grandma", praising Glenn Beck's new book, stating that Obama needs to be more bipartisan and focus on "getting 80 votes" (!!), and bragging to town hall attendees that his obstruction helped prevent the President from moving the bill forward earlier in the summer. Best friends forever!

The very same Sen. Grassley appeared on CBS' "Face The Nation" yesterday and was asked to explain, and defend, his grandma-killing fear tactics. Grassley explained, with no shame, that-

"I said that because — two reasons. Number one, I was responding to a question at my town meetings. I let my constituents set the agenda. A person that asked me that question was reading from language that they got off of the Internet. It scared my constituents. And the specific language I used was language that the President had used at Portsmouth(*), and I thought that it was — if he used the language , then if I responded exactly the same way, that I had an opposite concern about not using end-of-life counseling for saving money, then I was answering — [...]

...You would get into the issue of saving money, and put these three things together and you are scaring a lot of people when I know the Pelosi bill doesn’t intend to do that, but that’s where it leads people to."

So here you have Sen. Grassley admitting a) that this scary thing isn't actually in the bill, and b) that he lied to his constituents and acted like it was, because he lets them 'set the agenda' based on things they found on the internet. I don't know what is 'scarier' to me... that this man is a U.S. Senator or that the President considers him one of his "Republican friends on Capitol Hill".

[*Note: The President did say that... as an example of the lies poisoning this debate.]

It's my growing belief that Obama's achilles heel is his obsession with getting 'everyone at the table' and insisting that he can negotiate in good faith with Republicans. So many of his early missteps (the watered-down stimulus, failure to get most legislation and political appointees past the Senate, etc) can be traced back to his insistence on taking this path, regardless of the substantive legislative costs. Bipartisanship and compromise are two-way streets... but so far this year, they haven't been. I've read reports that Democrats are considering going it alone on health-care and looking for ways to pass this bill along party-line votes (we do have the majority, you know) so that we don't have to sacrifice any more substance at the alter of bipartisanship. We could only be so lucky.

My biggest fear now is that we will end up, once this process is over, with a bill that makes our health-care system worse... ie. a mandate for health insurance, but without a public option or any substantive consumer protections. And if that's the case, it will be a disaster for America in the important sense, and for the Democrats in the political sense. But hey, at least President Obama and Charles Grassley will still have their beautiful friendship. And that's what really matters, right?

President Bu...?? Can't Remember. Who Were We Talking About?

2009-08-24T11:47:00.003-04:00

So I opened the free Metro newspaper this morning a full-page ad by the "U.S. Citizens Association", positioning themselves seemingly as a non-partisan watchdog group, explaining how Obama and the Democrats are socialists who have plotted for decades to destroy the economy and take all wealth for themselves while bankrupting 99% of America. Because when you think concentration of wealth and the destruction of the poor, you think... socialism.

It blames the collapse in our economy over the past several years on everyone from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to other figures such as Janet Reno and Barney Frank. AND NO ONE ELSE! The ad can be read here. One could spend all day debunking every point and lie in this ad, but I shall refrain. However, by request (via comments or elsewhere), I will be happy to take on anything in this ad. I am already doing so in my head anyway.

Instead, as is my wont and obsession, I decided to research this organization (using "the googles") and discover exactly who was really behind this "Citizens" organization. My first guess? The Ron Paul loons. Apparently incorrect! Here's what I discovered: This organization-- a lobbying group-- used to call themselves the 'Better Government Association' but was sued by the real Better Government Association (a genuinely non-partisan government watchdog organization that has been around since 1923) and was forced by a court order to change their name. So now they are the "U.S. Citizens Association". The chairman of their board is a man named Ed Rollins, a Republican campaign consultant and advisor who was worked on numerous campaigns, including Reagan-Bush '84 and Huckabee '08 (but has worked with countless other far-right Republicans over the years, such as Newt Gingrich and others). It seems they also have an army of lawyers, who have refused to comment to any press inquiries thus far about the ads. So, you know, a real grassroots citizens group.

Oh, and PS... ACORN!

PS.

2009-08-20T14:28:00.006-04:00

One final addendum for the day on health-care...

I was watching this clip of Matt Taibbi being interviewed on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' about health-care (two plugs in one day, Matt, you owe me a kickback!) and some of the pundits objected to his criticism of the U.S. health-care system. The standard pushbacks were thrown against Taibbi... that most Americans like the health-care they get, that we have done great innovative work on this front, that many foreign people come here because our system is so awesome, and etc. I didn't think Taibbi did the best job responding to these specific points-- though they got there in the end-- so let me give my response, since they always come up.

I agree with those points in general... America does have amazing facilities and doctors (I'll leave the drugs out of this for now), and many Americans are satisfied with both. But... that's not the point and it's not the issue. The issue is that the greatness or horrors of a system is moot if you don't have access to it. And our current system of a profit-based, private insurance monopoly-- except for all those socialist old people and veterans who have a... wait for it... public option already-- is on the wrong side of that. Don't have, or can't afford, insurance? You're screwed. Have insurance? You're screwed anyway, because between denied claims and cancelled policies and increasing co-pays, countless Americans are being driven into poverty for the crime of having gotten sick. It's a corrupt system that is overly complicated and puts profits ahead of health. Nearly a third of all premium dollars go toward administrative costs, not toward paying claims and actual care. That is the issue.

The idea that since the occasional foreign millionaire may come to the U.S. to see a particular specialist (unlike the majority of Americans, who could never afford that) all this is negated is laughable. But it's part of the narrative tide we are fighting against. For every such anecdote, I can find you (very easily) a hundred of these heart-breaking stories. I'm sure the latter is more tragically familiar to most Americans too.

This is not a good system. Period. There is a reason the World Health Organization ranks us #37 in this regard. And I'll note again, in conclusion, that the idea of replacing this system was taken off the table from the start... at best, all that is being proposed is an option for something better, with some regulations here and there to help the rest. If we're the greatest country in the world, we deserve at least that much.

Yes We Can't.

2009-08-20T12:45:00.004-04:00

Yes, I'm still neglecting this blog like a bad parent, but I still like to peek my head in every so often and make sure it hasn't choked on any blocks. Looks okay, so let's proceed!

The political debate this months leads us right back to where we were the last time I posted... health-care reform. The last time I blogged about this, my pessimism was showing, but my aura of hope remained. What have I missed since then? Of yes... America went completely insane. I'll get to that, fear not.

For me, I've been trying to stay as focused as possible on the substance of where this is all headed. This past month I thought, I can't be the only who noticed that the fight for 'universal healthcare' became 'health care reform' and now is simply 'health insurance reform'. And that's the bigger story. The Democrats-- elected to their most powerful majority in decades less than a year ago-- still endlessly bargaining away their own agenda. For all the oxygen being consumed by right-wing loons and cable news pundits and lobbyists, etc, a failure to get meaningful reform passed (if that's what ends up happening) will really be a story of a Democratic leadership that failed to actually lead, and also became a victim of the very special interests they set out to vanguish.

People like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin (and countless numbers of angry tea-baggers shaking their fists, and guns, from coast to coast) may be shameless and loud and good at what they do, but they don't hold any political office. They don't control the White House or congressional committees. But people like President Obama and Senator Baucus and Rahm Emmanuel and their colleagues do. These are supposed to be smartest guys in Washington and they are blaming their failures on a bunch of people who think that Obama forged a U.S. birth certificate so he can take over America and put us all in FEMA concentration camps and grind grandma up into soylent green. That is not acceptable when the stakes are this high.

The cynic in me wonders if, at this point, Congress wants to pass a reform bill (any reform bill) just to check it off the list, and move on. To what? That's unclear. The key question I'd ask if I were a White House reporter is this... is there any health-care bill that Congress could pass that'd be so watered-down and unacceptable to the President that he would veto it? That answer would clarify a lot.

Of course, the media has made matters worse by making the story not the issue itself, but the anger. When President Obama held a lengthy press conference on the issue, the story for the next week was about the Professor Gates controversy that he commented on in the final question of the hour. When Sarah Palin (Unemployed - Alaska) wrote a rant on Facebook about imaginary 'death panels', it immediately took over the entire debate. Etc. It's not hard to figure out why so many Americans remain uninformed about the substance.

And, finally, to the liberals who helped elect Obama... yes, we should draw a line in the sand... a public option is non-negotiable. I'm with Howard Dean on this. Without it, all you've got, after all this time and energy and political capital, is some mild insurance reforms that will likely have huge loopholes in them anyway. That's not reform, and it's worth the time and money that's being asked for it.

I still want to have great faith in Obama's leadership. But we've got over three years left (with an option for four more), and if we can't accomplish this now, under these circumstances, what can we accomplish? The answer to that would clarify even more.

Health-Care Links

2009-08-20T12:40:00.005-04:00

Two good stories that play up the angles from which I'm following this...

NY Times: A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform

AP: FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

Business Week: The Health Insurers Have Already Won--
How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit

...and here is a must-watch segment from the last 'Real Time w/ Bill Maher' showing who's angry and who's not with all of this, and what that says about the state of U.S. health-care.

A Month Old Now...

2009-08-20T11:38:00.005-04:00

...But still deserves to be posted. It's Matt Taibbi's story on Goldman Sachs-

The Great American Bubble Machine-
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again

To me, the big political story of 2009 so far (other than health-care, natch... more on that later) is how the economic collapse of 2007-2008, which was supposedly going to shake the American economic status quo to its core, has essentially changed nothing ... other than putting countless more Americans out of work. The bailouts and back-room deals of 2008 coupled with the failures this year to get any meaningful Wall Street/banking reforms passed have ensured that the same system that nearly destroyed the global economy will remain untouched. Nobody likes learning lessons and it seems that we all collectively decided not to.

And what passes for economic reporting in this country isn't helping. We have publications like Newsweek insisting that the recession is over... while simultaneously acknowledging that conditions on the ground (jobs, foreclosures, etc) haven't improved yet. So why "over"? Because Wall Street had a few bubble-licious good weeks? I'm not seeing anyone on a large forum asking these questions.

And the President who hired Larry Summers-- yes, this Larry Summers-- as his top economic adviser is supposedly a socialist.

There's that old cliche that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I think that's apt here. And when the next economic crisis hits us down the road, it will be very hard not to feel that we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Tom Ridge confirms that the sky is blue!!

2009-08-20T10:39:00.001-04:00

Tom Ridge, reasonably sane Republican and former head of the Department of Homeland Security has-- what else?-- a new (tell-all?) book coming out, called "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege... and How We Can Be Safe Again". Reports indicate Ridge "wants to shake 'public complacency' over security" (complacency? I still have to go through airport security in my socks and surrender my toothpaste).

They also say Ridge indicates he "was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over." This is a shock to almost no one, except maybe Joe The Plumber and that blond woman from Fox and Friends. Of course, it wasn't just one incident. It was a recurring theme. Keith Olbermann took a break from yelling at stuff a couple of years ago to do a really good report on the many terror-alert 'coincidences' during the Bush years-

I am posting this because a) history shouldn't so easily forget this aspect of the immediate post-9/11 political environment, and b) it's some good perspective as conservatives (well, the extremes anyway) go nuts insisting that there is no bigger threat to freedom than an affordable public health-insurance alternative.

Quote of the Year

2009-07-18T07:28:00.001-04:00

"Rather than shaping public opinion, he is running scared of it. And so, even more, is Congress."
--The Economist, on the leadership of President Obama

One More Thought on Health-Care...

2009-06-17T18:28:00.001-04:00

The real debate now is on whether a public option plan will be included in the health-care reform bill (and if it's not, I'm with Howard Dean... we should pass no bill at all, because it isn't worth it to throw a few billion dollar $$ at our current system). Conservatives say the idea of a public system peacefully coexisting with the existing private system sounds crazy to them and cannot work.

But we already have a such a public/private system in place on another level. Schools. Some Republican leaders may even have attended some.

The basic, default system we have for educating kids in America is a public school, funded by tax dollars and available to all children regardless of income or location. In most areas, this system works very well (I would know, I attended several in multiple states up until 7th grade). They are not mandatory, of course. Why? Because our country also has numerous private schools, and many parents choose to spend the extra $$$ to have their children educated there instead. Those parents, however, still pay taxes for public schools. There may be some quiet grumbling about that by some, but for the most part it's a non-issue.

But, as with my previous entry, for some reason we view health-care differently. And that's wrong.

[PS- And that's not even getting into the fact that the presence of a public option will force the private companies to behave like human beings to compete for customers. And that's good for everyone. Unless you like the idea of practices like this continuing forever without accountability or consequence.]

A Thought Exercise

2009-06-17T18:25:00.000-04:00

So conservatives claim that they're ideologically opposed to government involvement in health-care because ~~they exist solely as a party of contrarians now~~ they don't believe it is the government's place to provide this service. Okay, fair enough, that's a question of differing political philosophies and I will take it at face value.

But it is an inconsistent philosophy and I will help the GOP out by using my imaginary executive powers to rectify that. In addition to the removal of other public services (libraries, parks, etc), I am hereby dissolving all police and fire departments across the nation, and passing the tax savings back to Americans so that they can go forth and be better consumers. The issue of solving crimes and putting out fires will now be a free-market issue.

Instead of one taxpayer-funded police force, there will now be numerous private security forces opening up in your areas. There will also be companies selling crime insurance, which you can buy (or may be provided, in part, by your employer). When a crime happens to you, you will contact one of these private security forces and they will come to your service. Pricing plans will differ by crime and by area... smaller amounts for minor crimes like a mugging, but a larger fee for big crimes like rape. Don't have insurance? It's okay; you can get security help, and you will simply be billed for it later. Say, around $1,500 for their work catching your car's thief (remember, refusing to pay this bill may damage your credit score). Do have insurance? Well, be careful, it may be difficult to get good coverage in areas with preexisting crime conditions. We also recommend reading the fine print ahead of time... your house may have been robbed, but your policy does not cover home invasion. You're paying for that police response out of pocket. Only $2,000 though! There is no cause for complaint, however, as our nation's security forces are the envy of the world!

Fire-based assistance will work much in a similar way. We recommend getting that insurance as well, as paying out of pocket to have a fire put out has been shown to lead to financial ruin in some extreme cases. Be preemptive by better fire-proofing your home and neighborhood. Put the personal in personal responsibility!

This is a great, socialism-free system that Americans will tolerate and love. You're welcome.

Stories I Wish I Had More Time To Blog About...

2009-06-17T15:40:00.004-04:00

...President Obama's regulatory reform: real or paper tiger? How the fact that some top banks started offering to pay back some TARP money just as the government was gonna increase conditions for it on them proves what a scam this whole bailout was from the start. Why no one seems to care about job creation anymore. The populist uprising in Iran (the revolution will be Tweeted!). Why cable news thinks I'm supposed to still give a shit about Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Etc.

Alas, I am a lazy lazy man.

President Obama Hates Gay People...

2009-06-17T15:33:00.000-04:00

...true story.

President Obama Gets Realistic At Last

2009-06-17T15:32:00.001-04:00

My Head Hurts

2009-05-20T12:46:00.009-04:00

If there's one (satirical) video that highlights why I remain on blogging hiatus, it's this-

(And that doesn't even include how conservatives are rallying around the awesomeness of torture, while somehow simultaneously being pissed as all fuck that Nancy Pelosi may have received a memo about it once. Kill me.)

Let's face it... for better or worse, we have only two major political parties in America. One political party seems to literally have gone insane and has nothing of substance to offer to the national debate on any issue that actually matters. The other party-- the one that controls everything right now-- remains too scared of said crazy party to really act on the things they were elected to. And so we get lots of half-measures (on health-care, climate change, etc) that only worth celebrating because they contrast well with the inaction of the previous administration. And my poor, meager brain is not capable of processing all of this.

Just today, I read news that "the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the [Obama] administration the millions it sought to close the prison." Why? Because perpetual coward Harry Reid is forcing himself to regurgitate GOP talking points that pretend that closing Guantanamo means sending its prisoners out in the streets of America... rather than in a secure military/Supermax prison like we have always done before. We're better than this.

And then there's this crazy news. And this disappointing news. And it just keeps piling up and my head starts to hurt, and then I feel like I need to walk away, though I know this important and I must keep informed.

I know, it's too early to judge. And I love being proved wrong. Just not optimistic anymore.

[UPDATE (5/26): Obama has picked his nominee... let the crazy, stupid fight begin!]

Congratulations, Banks!

2009-05-12T18:17:00.002-04:00

Treasury Sec. Geithner speaks on how his stress tests have solved this crisis forever...

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

In Which Your Absent Author Expresses His Cynicism Once Again...

2009-05-12T14:59:00.004-04:00

Is the health-care industry playing President Obama? Almost certainly. Is he going to let them?

The answer to that question is what will determine whether we actually get substantive health-care reform in this country, or just simply the appearance of it. Despite some positive signs, I am not optimistic.

A big problem, of course, is that our political discourse is ruled by rich people (who can afford quality care) and, of course, politicians (who don't want to give the rest of the country an option for a public plan like the one they all enjoy). I am reminded of when Tony Snow (rest his soul) left his White House gig in 2007, he said it was because he couldn't afford to live on-- particularly with his medical bills-- his salary of $168,000 a year. And yet the average American, who makes significantly less and doesn't have a government job, is told to just deal with it.

And the opposition party is freaking out that healthcare reform is even on the table right now... while admitting that they have nothing to offer themselves on the issue. (Other than Frank Luntz's talking points, which they've wasted no time in embracing, naturally.) The fact that President Obama has discussed using the reconciliation budget process to get health-care passed is the only sign that he truly understands the nature of this opposition.

The bottom line is that we need to start getting families like this on TV more often (and I'm sure everyone here has nightmare stories of their own... feel free to share!), and then we'll see the debate start to shift, and the legislation along with it.

[UPDATE: Why I'm not optimistic... Obama caved on this issue and this one, he can be made to cave here too.

UPDATE #2 (5/15): Cynicism validated already... Lucy pulls the football away from Pres. Charlie Brown.]

Quick Thoughts

2009-05-12T14:48:00.003-04:00

So it seems that America is (very slowly) becoming totally gay for same-sex marriage. This is one of the few bright spots in the otherwise dark sky of political news in 2009.

How much of the Bush-Cheney push for torture in 2002 was about building a case for invading Iraq? That's key, I think. And reality is about to smack around the pro-torture crowd yet again.

Rush Limbaugh is a ~~racist~~ very serious person. And Dick Cheney loves him.

President Obama doubles down on Afghanistan. For better or worse.

2009 White House Correspondents Dinner

2009-05-10T08:54:00.002-04:00

Watch it here... President Obama, pt. 1, pt. 2, Wanda Sykes, pt. 1, and pt. 2.

Viva la revolución, GOP! (Pt. II)

2009-05-06T11:30:00.004-04:00

I wrote my entry last night before watching 'The Daily Show'... and awesomely enough, they did a segment on the same issue I was writing about. So as an addendum, here is the video-

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Republicans: The Lost Party

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Viva la revolución, GOP!

2009-05-05T23:24:00.008-04:00

The Republicans cannot seem to understand not only why they are in the minority... but increasingly so. Starting with their congressional losses in 2006, they decided it was because their party wasn't conservative or pure enough. This has resulted in them purging anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin from the party (Arlen Specter, who has spent his first week as a Democrat opposing everything that Obama wants was a 'RINO' to them), which results in a party that is increasingly only inhabited by the lunatic fringe, which results in them losing more voters and elections, which results in them deciding the party needs to be more pure... and, well, you get the idea.

And, on the other hand, away from the teabaggin' purists, you have the party bigwigs who are busy having pizza parties to discuss how best to 'rebrand' the party... but not actually come with anything new of substance to win back disgruntled voters. According to Mitt Romney, these geniuses are revolutionaries.

As I said in my previous entry, my big political obsession right now-- since, despite my many disagreements with the current administration (the bailouts/bank policies, Afghanistan, etc), I do feel comfortable that actual grownups are in charge again-- is the slow mental unraveling of the conservative movement and the GOP in general. So I have decided to use this blog to keep track of (every so often) the crazy things that come from them on a daily basis.

Republicans, keep in mind: A big part of Democratic popularity is because this alternative-

ThinkProgress: EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Limbaugh Mocks Recession During Speech To Wealthy Right-Wing Donors

HuffPost: Republicans Defend Tax Havens Against Obama Crackdown

ThinkProgress: At meeting with Obama, GOP leaders were ‘unprepared’ to make any ‘concessions’ on health care.

YouTube: Rep. Pence denies global warming and evolution

HuffPost: Joe The Plumber Slurs Gay People: I Would Never Let "Queers" Near My Children

Salon: The Republicans are against it! Whatever it is: Led by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the GOP is already preparing to oppose President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court as a radical leftist -- whoever he or she is.

TPM: Historian Michele Bachmann Blames FDR's "Hoot-Smalley" Tariffs For Great Depression

ThinkProgress: Bush officials lobbying Obama Justice Department to ‘water down’ torture report.

I found all these within 10 minutes of blog searching. One week. But hey, Joe Biden has gaffes and stuff, so it's all equal.

Pres Obama's 100 Days: Everyone Agrees... Good Start, Needs To Be More Liberal

2009-04-29T18:08:00.002-04:00

I could sit here and discuss all of the things that President has accomplished in this (very) early stretch of his presidency... passing a stimulus bill, expanding children's health insurance coverage, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (the latter being holdovers from the last Congress), beginning the process of closing Guantanamo and ending the Iraq war, reversing some bad Bush-era policies on stem cells and carbon emissions and other issues, diplomatic overtures. Or the things he has yet to accomplish... an exit strategy for Afghanistan, figuring out what the hell to do with TARP, health-care reform, real climate change action (beyond cap-and-trade proposals), taking a real stand on controversial issues like gay marriage or the war on drugs, other big issues. But I won't because, a) those issues have been exhausted elsewhere (one example), and b) I think that the tradition of grading a President based on the arbitrary 100-day mark is kind of stupid.

So instead I'll write about the topic that is endlessly fascinating me lately... the slow mental unraveling of the conservative base in America. As the tea parties showed, they are mad as hell and they are not gonna take it any more!! Except they're still trying to figure out what "it" is. They know they hate Obama and that he's destroying America, but they're unable to explain why without going on insane rants about forged birth certificates and secret Muslims and socialism and FEMA concentration camps. (And let's not even get into the Republicans in Congress who are voting against Obama on everything so they can run against him as a do-nothing President in 4 years.)

They no longer have consistent positions on anything of consequence. For instance, ask them these basic questions and watch them dissemble like crazy.

(Give 'em time... they'll figure it out-- ??-- eventually)

One interesting side aspect of that has been that so many of their complaints about Obama seem to be that he hasn't changed enough from the Bush-era policies... despite their endless defending of Bush, if they even acknowledge his presidency existed at all. The first time I noticed this phenomenon was months ago when Rush Limbaugh-- who's been the ringleader of this circus-- cited the bank bailouts as a reason why he disapproved of Obama. This was said not only before Obama was even sworn in, but also with no acknowledgment that the bailouts were the design of President Bush and Henry Paulson. And you would not believe how pissed Limbaugh is at Obama for lying about why we went to war, or the housing bubble, or his failure to save New Orleans! Fascist!

I've been spending (way too much) time debating conservatives on LJ communities and keep seeing this time and time again. Here's one guy (when he's not arming himself to defend America from the socialists) giving President Obama faux-shit over his maintaining of some of Bush-era CIA programs... when, in theory, he should be praising Obama for that. Or this guy who stated that "it's obama who wants to do away with civil lilberties." When pressed for an example, he cited a news story noting that 'President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.' So, once again, the anger is that Obama is failing to fully end all of the horrible, destructive policies that Bush set in motion years ago. Now I completely agree that is the biggest failure thus far of his presidency... but do they? Again, asking them to answer that will elicit no rational response.

Still, it's nice to know that, in theory, all of America agrees that to become a stronger President, Obama needs to become more progressive and to move even further away from the excesses of his Republican predecessor.

As Paul Krugman said of the Specter move, the political schizophrenia on the right "is not good for American democracy– we really do need two major parties in competition. But I’ll settle for getting that back after we get universal health care and cap-and-trade."

Blueduck Shrugged

2009-04-29T15:20:00.002-04:00

A guy on my LJ friends list, Jim Smith, just wrote an entry puzzled at the recent surge of interest in libertarian hero Ayn Rand's classic novel, 'Atlas Shrugged'. Jim writes-

I don't know a lot about the book, but the article says it "concerns a group of corporate chieftains and individualists who go on strike in protest of government intervention in business." This would seem to be of great interest to, y'know, corporate chieftains, but are there enough of them to create a sales spike? I would think you'd need to bring the masses on board, and lately the masses are all upset about their perception that the government is intervening on behalf of corporate chieftains.

I have to admit the article piqued my curiosity about the book, since I don't really get libertarianism and I'd be interested to read an argument in favor of it. Just within the article Rand's Objectivism seems to be completely undercut, when it cites Alan Greenspan's subscription to the philosophy and then quotes his statement to Congress about the failure of laissez-faire economics to self-regulate:
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity -- myself, especially -- are in a state of shocked disbelief," Greenspan told a congressional hearing in October.

This is the sort of statement that makes promoting libertarianism an uphill climb--Greenspan doesn't seem to have a plan on how free markets can now turn around and fix the problem free markets failed to prevent. I'm not one to suggest the government will fix everything or that we'll be better off permanently nationalizing shit, but at this point I would think increased government intervention can accomplish more than Alan Greenspan standing around being shocked.

Because this type of thing frustrates me as well, I felt compelled to respond. Here goes...

The great success of modern conservatism (Reagan conservatism, as opposed to say, classic Eisenhower conservatism) is convincing average Joes-- middle class, working class, or worse-- that protecting corporate chieftains from government regulation or intervention is their cause too.

It's no coincidence that the tea party movement originated from a rant by CNBC pundit Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago stock market, in which he not only called for the tea parties, but also insisted that those facing foreclosure were "losers". Or that the taxes that the teabaggers were ranting about affect only those making over $250,000 while most of America (including, I'm sure, 98% of the teabaggers) got a tax break from Obama. They've taken corporatism and repackaged it as a populist movement.

And it's a mix too... people scared by the current economy that they're attempting to find solace in that, but it's also a lot of conservatives angry at being in the minority after many years of political ascendancy using this for solace too (I've read lots of rants on conservative LJs that they fear the government will soon enslave us all).

The good news, I suppose, if polls can be believed, is that these people are increasingly a minority. It's hard to convince people that the free-market is infallible and that government is evil when right now the government is the only thing keeping the mess caused by the free-market gods from completely imploding our economy.

That's not to say we go all the way in the other direction, but it's clear that, despite a small surge in book sales, Americans are way opposed to the Rand worldview.

[PS- Jim also writes in that entry about how Rand's worldview connects with what Bernie Madoff did, and failed to get away with. Good stuff there too. I responded to that as well, which can be read here.]